Aerotech 3.0 upgrades, rules fixes and new tech.

[Starfox1701]

OK hears the setup this tread will function on a basis of one question, rule of bit of upgraded or new tech at a time and seek to hammer out appropriate and balanced rules. Players can then take the rules and test them and report back on how well they work and if they are disruptive to the game balance or play as a whole.  Topics that will not be entertained include artificial gravity, I personally think its possible but beyond the current development of the universe by centuries or more based on what we know, exotic power sources and drives, no matter/antimatter reactors, zpms, warp drives and such, or super advanced weapons, ie high end particle beam weapons like phasers, turbo lasers, molecular disruptors or super nukes though at some point we might look at nuke based lasers and such.

Before I announce the first topic is there anything else the more experienced members think should be off limits? I'll keep the comment period open for 48 hours.

[DarthRads]

Multiple levels of warship tech. A c2300 kf drive should not be equal to a c2700 model.

[Arkansas Warrior]

OK hears the setup this tread will function on a basis of one question, rule of bit of upgraded or new tech at a time and seek to hammer out appropriate and balanced rules. Players can then take the rules and test them and report back on how well they work and if they are disruptive to the game balance or play as a whole.  Topics that will not be entertained include artificial gravity, I personally think its possible but beyond the current development of the universe by centuries or more based on what we know, exotic power sources and drives, no matter/antimatter reactors, zpms, warp drives and such, or super advanced weapons, ie high end particle beam weapons like phasers, turbo lasers, molecular disruptors or super nukes though at some point we might look at nuke based lasers and such.

Before I announce the first topic is there anything else the more experienced members think should be off limits? I'll keep the comment period open for 48 hours.

Shouldn't this be in the Fan Designs & Rules board?

[Giovanni Blasini]

Shouldn't this be in the Fan Designs & Rules board?

Yes, yes it should.

[Moonsword]

It and any topics like it belong in this board.  Do not post fan rules to the Aerospace board, please.

[Starfox1701]

Duly noted sorry for the inconvenience.

Multiple levels of warship tech. A c2300 kf drive should not be equal to a c2700 model.

It should but based on the fluff the tech is all but unchanged for many centuries

[Giovanni Blasini]

Multiple levels of warship tech. A c2300 kf drive should not be equal to a c2700 model.

Unless some technology has simply peaked, such as fusion rocketry and KF drive tech.  That appears to fit with the canon, where certain technologies reached a certain level and then stagnated, and is also in keeping with Battletech being relatively low-tech for your typical space opera sci-fi series.

With that aside, some of the things I'd like to see at some point would be improved sensors that have better detection ranges than in canon, which are sometimes woefully short, though the naval comm-scanner suites help with that.  I also wouldn't mind, going hand-in-hand with that, some sort of breakthrough that allows capital-grade energy weapons to more easily target units well beyond the 900 km current cap.  Something like extended-range PPC or laser tech applied to capital weapons.  Improved teleoperated missiles could also be interesting, especially when combined with naval C3.

[Starfox1701]

Excellent ideas but what are we not want to see?

[Starfox1701]

What fuel use and engine tech?

[Giovanni Blasini]

Same.  Under no circumstances would I make any significant changes to the construction rules, any more than I would for BattleMechs, and transit drives for anything over, as I recall, around 800-1000 tons already violate the laws of physics badly: the energy required by the drive exceeds the amount available from fusion of its fuel.

[DarthRads]

Same.  Under no circumstances would I make any significant changes to the construction rules, any more than I would for BattleMechs, and transit drives for anything over, as I recall, around 800-1000 tons already violate the laws of physics badly: the energy required by the drive exceeds the amount available from fusion of its fuel.

So something that changes the fuel consumption rates?

[Giovanni Blasini]

So something that changes the fuel consumption rates?

Nope.  If you're looking for an upgrade of existing technologies in the canon setting, making the fuel usage realistic just isn't going to happen, because, among other things, it's a titanic step backwards comparatively.

Rewriting things to make for realistic fuel usage also does a number on the canon.  For starters, throw out any idea of DropShips travelling from distant jump points to inner system planets.  That just straight up isn't going to happen.

Ages ago, when Cray and I worked on BT2170, and enforced more realistic fusion rockets with highly realistic specific impulses (Isp), we found that the effect on DropShips was significant.  A ship the size of a Union class, for example, ends up being a lance transport in place of the Leopard, because the mass fraction of fuel needed to deorbit, land, take off again, and return to orbit was exorbitant: to get 80 thrust points, equivalent to 1 ton of ASF fuel in canon, on a 3600-ton Union class DropShip took 2206 tons of fuel, or better than 61% the total mass of the ship, using an Isp of 5000, which was a bit generous, but within the realm of possibility for high-thrust fusion torch.

One way to deal with it is, obviously, to switch to a low-thrust, high Isp setting on your engine, which should be theoretically possible, just like in canon, though in our case, we went with a more realistic 0.1 G and 125,000 to 250,000 Isp.  That would get you a delta-v of 1,119,895 m/s for your roughly 61% mass fraction in fuel, or just shy of 1/3 AU (0.3234 AU) per day, once you factor in turnover to decelerate.  So your transit from Sol's jump point, around 10 AU out, takes you a month instead of a week.

So, yeah, that would take some major rewriting of the canon.

[Starfox1701]

Well personally I wasn't thinking  anything quite so radical. However there definitely is a strong desire in the community for something that at least looks more realistic for consumption rates. Larger things shouldn't be more fuel efficient then smaller things it's backwards. I would also personally like to take a look at the possibility for multiple engine and thruster setups and advanced rcs systems for maneuvering. Anyone got the original formula they used to come up with these numbers for fuel burn?

[Giovanni Blasini]

Actually, sometimes larger can be more efficient, and rockets are generally pretty linear.

[Starfox1701]

yea but theres no way a 2.5 mil ton ship is just as fuel efficient as a 200000 ton ship

[FedComGirl]

I would like to see older construction units. Aerospace units using rocket engines with really poor fuel consumption rates and such. They existed in canon and there should be some worlds that still use them.

I would love to see better integration with ground units. Right now they're not so integrated.
I'd like for Tilt-Rotors and similar aircraft to actually be Tilt-Rotors not just VTOLs. If they're supposed to fly as VTOLs and Aerospace let them be able to switch between modes.
Rules for airplanes and space vehicles that don't move at mapsheet speed. XTRO:1945 kind of helps with that but integration is still a problem. There are airplanes that do move at VTOL speeds. And not every spacecraft between 5 and 100 tons will be an aerospace fighter. We're missing civilian space craft in that weight bracket.
I'd like their to be rules for mounting turrets on aerospace units. Beyond just doing it and slapping it with the Illegal Quirk. We'd still need rules for about where the turrets can and can't fire. Besides, canon mentions aerospace turrets and history has them as well. It'd be nice to have them in the game.

[Starfox1701]

On the subject of turrets I've been thinking and the type most often seen in the art is covered with the current arc system pretty well. Larger arc blue water type spinal and broad side guns aren't but I question whether we have guns big enough to make such weapons worthwhile since most ships aren't designed to accommodate them currently . they aren't shaped right to clear the wider arcs up.

[Giovanni Blasini]

Yeah, the thing with turrets is that, if you consider them mounted on the "sides" of the ship, you're good to go.  If you want them "dorsal" and "ventral", you have a problem, because current rules do not reflect full three-dimensional space combat because of the added rules complexity, along with the greater difficulties of simulating it on a tabletop with minis.  In-universe explanations range from extra support gear getting in the way, to a kind of division where the thickest armor belts are not on the sides where you have the most guns, meaning that, in combat, ships are actually rolling to deliver fire then turning the thicker armor belts back (which could account for WarShip "evasion" and why we don't have "rolling broadsides").

[Starfox1701]

I think the simplest explanation is the ships structure. Current design places all  major strength of the spaceframe around the KF drive in the core of the ship. Theres no external keel to provide the the kind of hard mount location for these kind of spinal weapons since they would need to be so much larger then the typical weapons bays to justify the extra tonnage and armor such a turret would require.

[DarthRads]

I posted some era-specific rules a while back that had no effect on construction, but created different levels of technology by improving performance.

For example, a NL45 from 2750 had better range than one from 2300 and so on.

This also allowed for a bit of delineation between the Hegemony/SLDF, HOuses and Periph in the same way as the ground tech was done. It also helped explain why so many Hegemony Cast Offs stuck around with the houses (they were equal to or better than the current House Level).

There were 4 levels (I THink): Basic, Standard, Improved and Advanced. Only the SLDF had ADVANCED level tech.

I'll try and find the file

[idea weenie]

For fuel, just make it proportional to ship size.  So a 2 million ton ship will use twice as much fuel per burn-day as a 1 million ton ship.

For KF jumping, if you have an auxiliary computer and enough time, you get a bonus to your roll.  (Or a surface base can mount the massive computer/sensors, and transmit the jump coordinates).

Armor provides only 1/100 its rating in Threshold, but Internal structure provides the most.

Lasers have the most range, but count as 1/10 their value for vs Thresholding.
PPCs have less range, but count as normal vs Thresholding.
Kinetics have the shortest range (though missiles cal self-steer), but count as 5* their value for vs Threshold.

Fighters in squadron mode have an amount of armor equal to the average of the 3 highest ratings, but the Threshold of the average of the three lowest ratings.  This is calculated when the squadron is created before the battle, and squadrons cannot dissemble during the fight (this is a battle between Dropships and warships, ASF are the equivalent of infantry at this level).

Dropships get a DR of 5 for their armor, so every incoming attack loses 5 pts per weapon fired.  Warships have DR 10.  If armor is breached in a section, the DR no longer applies.

Civilian Dropship engines have a lower maintenance requirement, to make up for their increased fuel usage compared to military engines.

[Starfox1701]

Ok for project number one lets start simple Cap and sub cap lasers what do we have and what can we do to improve them

[FedComGirl]

In regards to turrets I know we don't have three dimensions in space. Not in the game anyway. But a turret on the side of a ship would let you fire forward and backwards as well as to the sides. In effect it'd be a sponson turret. Also there are ups and downs in an atmosphere. So they'd provide some extra protection from enemy aircraft while on the ground. I would imagine dorsal and ventral turrets would work like tank and VTOL chin turrets. Unless the aircraft banks, climbs, or dives, they're not going to fire into an arc opposite their location. Top mounted guns don't fire down. Botto mounted guns don't fire up.

[Starfox1701]

We will get to turrets but first I want to come up with some worthwhile guns to mount in them. The improved arcs that a turret will provide are kinda waisted on the normal70 point weapons bays. like I said the current arcs cover the ball turret barbets found on current designs quite well. I feel we need bigger more powerful weapons to justify the added weight and cost of installing full scale turrets on a warship. currently only cap scale missile batteries come close to being justifiable.

Add to that I think that turrets will add some more complexity to game play with additional damage placement and keeping track of where they are aimed should one of them be knocked out or there motive systems be damaged

[FedComGirl]

I would think being able to put 70 points of capital scale damage in any arc would be a good thing. And turrets always add complexity yet we still have them.

As for improving weapons, rapid firing NACs, ER Naval Lasers, or how about something new based on an old idea? Capitol scale  Volley Guns? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volley_gun  Putting 25 barrels of capital scale damage on a target is good. And it'd certainly be deadly for fighters.  >:D

[Starfox1701]

You can already do that with the normal weapons bays. true trurrtes are going to add significant weight to a gun set and require additional firecontrole to Trac across the different arcs. they will be more exposed so the will need additional armor. and there is there mount which I suspect will be equally heavy to handle the stresses much like a docking collar. 70 points isn't enough to justify all that extra stuff

[FedComGirl]

You'll have to tell me where it says that bays can fire in all arc because I'm not finding it. What I do see is some big empty spaces where units can't fire their weapons. Especially for Aerodynes.

The weight would be 10% per turret max. With Sponson Turrets you actually get 2 turrets for 10%. Why would turrets add extra fire control?  No other unit has to add extra fire control for turrets. Why would aerospace craft?

I also don't see why they'd need additional armor either. Turrets aren't a separate location on Mechs like they are on vehicles. Except for heat turrets - Which are already a location. The turret mechanism just lets it move which art shows them doing anyway. They really should be a quirk or something, like flippable arms. - Sponson Turrets aren't even a separate location on tanks. Since turrets not separate locations on mechs, why would they need to be on aerospace units? And if there's no extra location there's no need to armor it.

Why would they interfere with docking collars? Sure there's a risk of accidentally shooting the dropships but that's what fire interrupt mechanisms/circuits are for.

Thing is if you look at some of the art you see turrets. I'd just like to be able to play the units as they're shown. And I think paying an extra 10% of the weapon's tonnage to cover a blind spot is worth it. But didn't you want to discuss improving weapons first?

[Giovanni Blasini]

Oh hell no we don't need capital bays over 70 points, any more than we need AC/40s with 25-hex range on BattleMechs.

No. Just no.

[Starfox1701]

Alright first off lets be clear. I have no intention of changing standard weapons bays. They work just fine for what they are supposed to do. Second I never said they can individually fire into multiple arcs. We all know they can't. Third this is not a tank or fighter or mech. These are huge spaceships and fast moving multi thousand ton craft that have to deal with huge stresses when under power and we are asking the turret to track other fast moving targets over distances that would take hours to drive compute the intercept point and fire in time. If all you want is the arc then just house rule the bay to shoot in a wider field and you are done. I'm talking about doing this right so that its not another dreked up mess like so much of the other warship and dropship rules. We aren't talking about a small change hear from a story point of view but a major alteration of naval architecture so lets not malf it up by oversimplifying it ok. That said I can see using the turret construction rules as a starting point but I don't see them covering this situation thoroughly since there are some fundamental differences in how these turrets work compared to  planet bound ones

[idea weenie]

I'd like the option of turrets to fire into larger arcs, but at a steadily increasing tonnage.  I.e.:

Fire into total of one arc - no additional turret tonnage (i.e. current rules)
Fire into total of two adjacent arcs: +10% for turret tonnage
Fire into total of three adjacent arcs: +30% for turret tonnage
Fire into total of four adjacent arcs: +60% for turret tonnage
Fire into the full 180 arc: +100% for turret tonnage (includes half hexes, and this is the limit)

So for a NPPC in the Aft arc, modified to fire into 3 adjacent arcs, it would look like (I am using slashes to differentiate the ranges):
1 NPPC / AL, Aft, AR / 15 / 15 / 15 / 15 / 450 Heat / 7,800 tons (6000 tons for NPPC, +30% for +2 arcs)

If the NPPC gets a critical hit, remove one of the arc options.  The remaining arcs have to be adjacent (So if it got a critical, the attacker would remove either the AL or AR.  If it got another critical, the attacker would decide if the Aft or AR got removed.)

The advantage is that you can pay a much smaller tonnage amount for turret capacity (plus reduced fire control tonnage).  The disadvantage is if there are multiple targets, you still only have one gun.


For >70 pt bays, I would argue for them, but note that it requires larger ships to mount them.  Say max bay Capital damage is mass / 20k tons, FRU?  So a 100 kton ship can have max 5 capital pts per bay, while a 1.93 MTon McKenna can have a max 97 pt Bay.  The 2.4 MTon Leviathan can have a max 120 pt Bay.  I would also partner this with resistant armor, so larger Warships simply need to b hit with heavier weapons in order to take damage.  A McKenna will need to be hunted with dedicated anti-shipping weapons, while a Dante wouldn't have as much protection.  So some battles might be a swarm of smaller ships vs a single Battleship, the swarm side trying to deliver enough damage to cripple the weapons, while watching one ship after another getting annihilated from the heavy bays.


Now one thing that might be nice is a form of very slow Dropship movement.  Either treads on the bottom of a dropship, or moving one landing leg at a time, it allows a Dropship to SLOWLY relocate at a rough field.  This would allow a Dropship to land in water, the water is drained, and the Dropship slowly moves itself uphill to the land.  Maybe 1/100 of a Movement point, completely useless in a tactical battle, but being able to move 30 meters every 1000 seconds (~17 minutes, for a speed of .1 kph) means it can move slowly around a spaceport.  As a comparison, the shuttle crawler moves 1.6 kph when fully loaded.


As part of the penalty of firing a mass driver, the mounting platform has to spend 1 MP, to reflect that the whole ship has to be aimed at the target.  No evasive maneuvers can be performed, and all fire directed at the firing ship gets a 1 pt bonus to hit to reflect that the firing ship is carefully positioning itself for the shot instead of maneuvering to avoid being hit.